| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| MARINES: Shrinking The USMC |
| 2010-08-16 |
| Carter-like military coming? The U.S. Marine Corps is again threatened, this time with a sharp reduction in its size. In response, marine commanders say they would prefer to be a smaller force, one that concentrates on its main mission; amphibious operations. The marines were unhappy with the way they have been used as an army auxiliary over the past decade. The marines consider themselves specialists, while the army are generalists (and, for example, carried out more amphibious operations than the marines did during World War II). A different take on reduction in size of the Marine Corp. We just got done expanding the Core to meet the needs of Iraq and Afghanistan. |
| Posted by:tipover |
| #14 States cannot afford or equip a fulltime, professional military. If you were |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-08-16 21:25 |
| #13 States cannot afford or equip a fulltime, professinal military. Soldiers and their gear are expensive. Only the budget of a Fed can support this. Relying on the state for fighting and equiping militias it ludicrous. No militia is on par with full time soldiers. Nor will the have their T/O&E. Demirats hate the military because they don't fit into their warm, fuzzy world view, and protect them. After all, you don't need protection if you bend over and let every one love you. Right? |
| Posted by: miscellaneous 2010-08-16 20:41 |
| #12 People, People : state militias are not only legal in the US, they are provided for via the Constitution and federal statute. Most states have them, they are state-only troops that cannot be federalized except in a time of national emergency, with a FORMAL declaration of war. Even then, the state can refuse to release them, since all of their equipment and training is state provided -- the feds would have to replace them on a one-for-one basis. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2010-08-16 18:30 |
| #11 I'm OK with the idea as long as it's limited to Calikphornia, Arizona, New Mehico, and Texas. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-08-16 16:11 |
| #10 Lex: These would be under the auspices of the State they were living in. As such, they are far less dangerous than even National Guardsmen. The only equipment they have are rifles they own, and their POVs, unless the State temporarily issues them other equipment, like radios and emergency response gear. Likely, the State would arrange for them to unofficially keep their former rank in such a militia, but as a class designation, like E-5 and O-2 are used. They behave like Marines around each other because they want to. Senior personnel would be in charge of designing their training regimen, and evaluating their standards, such as signing off on PT tests. Again, the overall purpose is to keep them in shape, so that if there is a recall, there will be a motivated and prepared reserve ready to get back on active duty. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-08-16 13:20 |
| #9 hmmmm... Moose, with all due respect, your idea's scary. I would not assume that these freebooter militias would invariably serve benign political agendas. Could be another Freikorps. V. dangerous. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-08-16 12:38 |
| #8 One thing I know about Marines who are "out" in a RIF like this, is that they almost universally want back "in". So it seems like an excellent alternative to create a "Marine auxiliary", like a State militia unit, whose purpose is to keep them close to active duty standards, so that they could rapidly rejoin the Corps and move to active duty with minimal effort. Say a State sets up a system like this. It would need minimal funding, because most of the expense would be born by the individual. But just by clearing legal hurdles and providing organizational structure, would go miles to keeping them fit. They are not paid, and must keep their uniforms up to standards, but are allowed to purchase replacement uniform parts. They must also purchase their own specified semi-automatic only rifle and ammunition. Once a month, they perform a stringent PT test, and take a written test of written training material they were provided the previous month. Height/weight standards are in force. If there is a State emergency, they can be used, and paid, like National Guardsmen, as auxiliaries. But they cannot be federalized as a unit, only as individuals. If a border State is willing to pay them some money, they can act as border guards, not under federal constraints, and as a militia they are not subject to Posse Comitatus rules. I think this gives a good outcome for all. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-08-16 11:43 |
| #7 Perspective of numbers - 1940 General Pop. 132 million Army 267,000 Marines 28,000 ratio of both combined to population .0022 percent 2000 General Pop. 284 million Army 471,000 Marines 172,000 ratio of both combined to population .0022 percent We're at pre-WWII numbers in proportion of our armed forces to the general population while conducting a major war effort on the other side of the globe. If the bean counters want to reduce the Marine Corps they'd better be just shifting the personnel authorization over to the Army. Where are the savings? But of course this is not about having an adequate force structure is it? /rhet question * for the technical minded, those numbers are set by Congress for authorized active duty. Activation of the reserve elements require literally an act of Congress to allow those numbers above the authorization come every fiscal year if they're on 'active duty'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-08-16 09:25 |
| #6 Once again the sheep want to get rid of the sheep dogs. You can re arrange the numbers and the equipment but the country will always need a force in readiness to act as initial shock troops or to 'show the flag'. |
| Posted by: blackjack 2010-08-16 08:39 |
| #5 Money used for the military cannot be used to bribe rent-seekers and unproductive citizens to vote Democrat. So you know where this is going. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2010-08-16 04:06 |
| #4 Clinton shrank the military considerably. This was halted by 9/11 and eventually the Iraq war under Bush. It looks to me like a continuation of the Clinton policy. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2010-08-16 03:05 |
| #3 Carter-like military coming? Much worse. Our fiscal situation is now the worst it's been since the days of the Continental Congress. This is a feature, not a bug: Barry's objective is to starve the military and engineer a massive redirection of funds toward his cronies and his own version of Katrina, aka TheStim, TARP and GreenJobs. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-08-16 02:33 |
| #2 ION WMF > THE US MUST BE MADE TO UNDERSTAND CLEARLY: ONCE A US-CHINA SHOOTING WAR STARTS, CHINA WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING UNTIL IT ACHIEVES EITHER TOTAL VICTORY, OR ELSE TOTAL DEFEAT, AGZ THE US. NUCLEAR CHINA HAS ITS BILYUHNS IN POPULATION, THE NUCLEAR US HAS ITS HUNDREDS OF MILYUHNS. US-CHINA WAR WILL LAST FOR MANY YEARS. * SAME > JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION EXPERTS: A MAJOR US-CHINA REGIONAL WAR WILL DAMAGE OR DESTROY BOTH NATIONS' ECONOMIES. * SAME > SOUTH KOREA TELLS CHINA TO SUPPORT CONCEPTS/SCHEMAS FOR INTER-KOREAN COOPERATION + UNIFICATION, OR GET OUT OF NORTH KOREA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-08-16 01:10 |
| #1 Per the article there is some concern by some in the Corp that the Marines have become another branch of the Army. Too large and too heavy to conduct their primary mission as a maritime force. Good Read. |
| Posted by: tipover 2010-08-16 00:09 |